Do you intend to use historical army compositions?

**Ludens** · 06-24-2014, 15:01

Unless I am planning a big campaign, my armies tend to be ad-hoc compositions of whatever units are available. I frequently use stacks that are rather heavy on mercenaries or local levies, i.e. soldiers that have only a loose attachment to my empire. However, these armies are always built around a core of professional, or at least citizen militia, units.

So, not quite historical, but not unrealistic either.

When I do plan a campaign, I prefer unit types that can be expected to stay loyal: my faction's core units plus quality mercenaries. However, I am quite willing to vary proportions (i.e. more emphasis on cavalry than infantry or visa versa) if that makes the army more effective.

**QuintusSertorius** · 06-24-2014, 16:25

I find varied armies much quicker to recruit, since you tend to be more limited in what you get in your outlying settlements. Invariably that means they handle the light troops and the heavier, factional units come from the core.

**joshmahurin** · 06-25-2014, 02:21

If enough people explain what certain factions historical armies looked like then yes I would love to play in this manner :) otherwise I build like Ludens.

**alexkon3** · 06-25-2014, 15:47

When i'm campaigning i tend to use national units and units from my clients. when the war is longer i'll replace them with local mercenaries as soon as the unit is short on men.

**BroskiDerpman** · 06-26-2014, 03:42

Depends, I don't like using exact numbers or something.

I generally use my own imagination and what I enjoy from the most.

Or I pretend to reform armies, etc. I make my own story out of EB and the army compositions is one of the perspectives.

**Bambi** · 06-26-2014, 17:51

Partially. No when I play Diadochi. I used already in Rome 1 very few pikemen. (In any Arche Seleucia game, the Thorakitai formed the backbone of the armies. Probably not very historically).